The Hamburger Revolution

This story just keeps on giving.

History is the study of, chronicling of, analysis of, and appreciation of; change. History only exists because change occurs and humans are able to record those changes. It may be a fallacy to think of "timeless" cultures, hunter-gatherers or peasant societies, as having no history because nothing changes but this is something all human societies face from time to time. The small-minded occasionally fall into a trap of thinking tradition is good for no other reason that it is tradition, we have always done it this way therefore it is the best way. Never challenging why the tradition exists, questioning where it came from, or whether there are better ways of doing things. This is almost a textbook definition of conservatism, do not ask questions, do not assume you know better than those who came before you. What is occurring in Nevada on Cliven Bundy's "ranch" however, is nothing short of revolutionary and as far from conservatism as you can get.

I really need to throw some links up because this story and the media circus around it, specifically the right-wing authoritarian infotainment complex (thank you Bob Cesca), is by now so vast that it is difficult to know where the cattle end and the hamburger begins. NBC has a pretty decent running collection of facts on the story here that also contains quite a few facts helpful for getting your head around the weirdness. This site will also connect you to the hard news report from Reuters for the basics. Media Matters for America has been trying to keep a collection of fox news spin, though this is admittedly a herculean task. I was trying to keep up with the discussion at the Daily Banter on Cesca's excellent analysis. And Thom Hartmann's show pointed out some of the less-than-polite realities glossed over by most media coverage, putting a slightly different emphasis on what's at stake by always referring to "millionaire" Cliven Bundy.

But Steve Benen at Rachel Maddow's show put it pretty well when he wrote: "it’s unsustainable to think a group of well-armed extremists can simply block the enforcement of American laws in the United States... that’s not how the American system works. Indeed, that’s not how any system of government can ever work."

Might makes right is the law of the jungle. When the Federal Government, which theoretically has a monopoly on violence in society, decides to back down in the face of an armed mob for whatever reason the government then abdicates its place as the law and becomes just another actor in American power relations. And while Hartmann is absolutely correct in noting the class and wealth angle, money is secondary to power here. Though it is way above my pay grade to make a serious argument on that note. Money is power and power is money, one begets the other and vice-versa. Power to use others, to disregard and hold in contempt anything laws or will that conflicts with self-interest. These are the issues that all other distractions like race, immigration, the proper role of government, etc. attempt to deflect from.

Hamburgers. Is there a more potent symbol of Americana? I love them, so do you probably. But I, like anyone with even a basic understanding of economics, the environment, or biology, know that beef is a very inefficient and wasteful source of protein. Beef cattle are high-input, high-waste, poor conversion rate animals requiring a huge amount of space to raise without a correspondingly high investment of capital. Cheap hamburgers and all of the market distortions necessary to put them in Americans' stomachs is a self-evident example of why so-called "conservative" economics are complete BULLSHIT if you'll pardon my French. The artificially low grazing fees on public land are one instance of the perverse agricultural policies America has evolved since FDR and the New Dealers first tried to regulate the chaotic way food gets to your table many moons ago.

I have an acquaintance here in Wisconsin who's family owns and operates a dairy farm. The difference between a Midwestern dairy farm and a Western cattle ranch is so great that it is hard to believe they are raising almost the same kinds of animals. Bundy and other ranchers out there ought to be thanking fate, the government, and the machinations of history for putting them in such a fortunate position. Instead of being grateful for his incredibly low operating costs relative to farmers in the civilized portion of the United States, we get to witness the petulant arrogance that only a true Child of Darkness can display.

I realize this is getting rather long but there are two great American thinkers whose ideas reflect quite well on this story. When Reinhold Niebuhr first introduced the idea of Children of Darkness he was referring mainly to ambitious people seeking power within a state or government structure. These individuals recognize no law or restriction that conflicts with their own self-interest. The Children of Darkness do what they please unless restrained by some more powerful force. Cliven Bundy likes to portray himself on his many television appearances as a humble man seeking only to be left alone but the length and duration of his refusal to play nice puts the lie to this image. He is a selfish bastard who refuses to recognize any interests other than his own, and does not care how his actions affect others.

The other is University of Wisconsin historian Frederick Jackson Turner. Turner's Frontier Thesis has been the fount of so much cowboy folklore ever since he first introduced it in 1893. All of our American ideals about democracy, liberty, egalitarianism, and rugged individualism sprang from frontier society in Turner's thinking. As long as there was a frontier in America, virtuous pioneers would boldly move there and build society on their own according to the resources, climate, and temperament of the area. By this process the American frontier steadily moved west and then inland from the West Coast. Of course this process also brought along another, seedier, American ideal; speculation and the first claim mentality. Unscrupulous parasites have been ripping off productive Americans since veterans of the Revolution were compensated in bonds. Nearly worthless at issuance, those bonds gained value when bought up by speculators who then lobbied the government to redeem them at face value. But pioneers could grab the best land and pass it on to their heirs, leaving the less valuable land for late coming settlers, and garbage to remain public.

Turner believed the frontier had closed in 1890 and became concerned that innovation and democracy would suffer. What it could have meant was that we were going to have to start getting along and leave the cowboy crap behind. Unfortunately there are still these relics around like Bundy who act as though they are not only beyond the reach of civilization but above the law as well. A century ago, people living at the margins could pretend they are not part of a larger society but not anymore.

So, we have a private army of heavily armed vigilantes ready to fire on government officials and possibly die, for a deadbeat cowboy who thinks he is still living in the Nineteenth Century. Why did tradition freeze at the point of maximum selfishness for Cliven Bundy? History and most of America left this cowboy business behind a long time ago. Clinging to it in defiance of the law does not make Bundy a hero, it makes him a leech. Perfectly happy to keep the goods of raising his moos in a modern society, but claiming he still has the "perfect liberty" of a pioneer. Heads I win, tails I still win.

And we are letting him get away with it.